Cube root congressional districts

[jimrtex]

This map would probably be illegal. There would probably need to be at least 2, maybe 3 African America opportunity districts.

As the challenger, you must demonstrate that you can draw compact districts with 50% BVAP.

[jimrtex]

Sorry to butt in, but I am this close to dropping 20+ state maps (some of which have already been done) including CA, TX, and FL as soon as I finish the write ups.



My South Carolina map proves that you can easily have two BVAP districts, and 3 (like mine) is possible if you use the same justification that was used in VA last year. if you are drawing you districts naturally based on counties, then there needs to be two Black belt based districts, it is easy to make the two BVAP districts. It is then the map creators decision whether or not to stick Richland into one of the districts or to make it its own district.

The Richland based district in my map is only about 44% BVAP, however it is highly Dem and whites are still a VAP minority thanks to other minorities. 3 easy districts.

Can you get SC-3 and SC-5 to 50% without going into Richfield? Then you can put all of Richland in a district and not worry about whether it is a required VRA district since it will be an effective cross-over district based on neutral non-racial considerations.

You shouldn't have to split both Orangeburg and Williamsburg.

The Florence finger is suspect.

The split of Charleston is OK, given that you have to have space for two non-VRA districts along the coast. But is that true? What happens if SC-1 takes all of Beaufort and Dorchester?

Greenville should not be split. Bring the Spartanburg district south and then SC-10 over to the west.

I don't like those nibble of Lexington.

[jimrtex]

Southwest

Colorado

Authors Note:

Colorado is the reverse of the Rust belt, a state where republicans are self-packing. The Denver Suburbs seemed doomed to become a Democratic stronghold, or at leave a Democratic leaning zone. Drawing this map, I felt almost prophetic. In 2020, with the addition of and 8th district, Colorado will have to draw a HVAP district. Such a district will force cuts into Denver spreading the Democratic votes around the metro.

The hardest part about drawing the map was honestly the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th districts. I wanted the 1st district to be a Fort Collins + Greely district, yet I seemingly couldn’t get the 2nd districts’ cut to look nice.  Eventually I found a way to get it to work. The 3rd and 4th also had a similar problem. I wanted the 3rd to be a Rocky mountains district with the 3rd the only district on the Western side of the peaks. Eventually I found a divide that worked out nicely, and didn’t sent the 3rd beyond its base in the rural West.

Majority Minority Districts:

Colorado provides our first introduction to HVAP, and all the caveats that come with it. HVAP does not tell us how many of said Hispanics are actually registered, something that matters a lot in California and Texas. Here though, the 10th is a 51% HVAP district. If it was found to be below population count, then the district could head east to Aurora rather than North to Adams. 

Most Competitive Districts:

CO – 01: The Northern district is always going to be a swing district. The district is made of the entirety of Weld county and northern Larimer County. This piece of Larimer County subtracts the south which includes Loveland and Estes Park. Clinton lost Larimer + Weld when whole by about 20K votes. However, when the Southern, traditionally more conservative bits of Larimer go into the Boulder district simply by proximity, the result becomes more opaque. Obama of course won uninterrupted Larimer + Weld by about 3K votes in 2008, so process of elimination say Clinton lost here by around a respectable 10K votes. Tossup, or Tilt R.

CO – 04: The Rocky Mountain district. It is an Obama by 54% district and has a lot of moving parts in that coalition. Democrats dominate the ski towns in the West, and Republicans rule the rural bits of the East lope between the peaks and Colorado Springs. This produces a negligible difference in partisanship, with Pueblo acting as the equalizer. With Trump winning Pueblo marginally, he wins the 4th marginally. The end result is a district rated as Tossup.

CO – 09: This is a Republican district that could very easily have voted for Clinton. Her swings across the district were huge, sometimes 15% huge. In many precincts, she easily outperformed Obama 2008. The Republicans though have the historical advantage here, with the district easily being part of the upscale GOP wealthy class type that used to form their bedrock. While Democrats play defense in the 4th, they play offense here. Tilt R.

CO – 11: CO – 11 is pretty much Jefferson county minus Southern Columbine and plus the Adams bits of border crossing Westminster. The thing is Jefferson has stopped being a true swing county. While it voted for Bush, it did not vote for Gardner in the Senate. Clinton expanded the margins here, and Democrats benefit from her gains. Likely D.

The division between CO-3 and CO-4. Division of the San Luis Valley, particularly Conejos, in unforgivable. While there is a separation of interest between the Western Slope and the ski areas, you are still better making a north-south split.

Start by shifting Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit, and Eagle from CO-4 to CO-3 picking up Breckinridge and Vail, in exchange for the remainder of the San Luis Valley, and start working across Archuleta, La Plata, and Montezuma. The goal is to get CO-4 to the Four Corners. If you need some more population in CO-4, shift Pitkin, and then Lake, if this helps you get a bit more north in CO-4. Delta and Montrose could go in either district, though my preference would be to keep them with Mesa (Grand Junction).

I would look at putting the Lower Arkansas Valley (Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers) into CO-4. They fit better with Pueblo than Colorado Springs. In  exchange look at moving Teller, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin into either a Denver district or CO-5.

I doubt that there is a Hispanic VRA district in Denver. First, the majority has to be among voters. While there is a considerable non-Mexican Hispanic community, many will have moved further west, and they may not vote cohesively (i.e. for the Democrat). Replacements have either been gentrifiers, or immigrants, who may be increasingly dispersed where they can find housing in apartments. But the district is OK as a Hispanic influence district. The fact that you admitted to having a target percentage suggests that race was predominating over everything else, especially when you started going out into Aurora.

Using an airport to connect parts of a district is not acceptable. A city with 350,000 people (Aurora) should have its own district, so ignore the county line. Put Sheridan, Englewood, and Cherry Hills into CO-9. CO-8 has to stay in Denver, even it pushes CO-10 further out into Adams.

Up North, I'd start with Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Fort Collins and the mountain areas in one district; and Weld, Broomfield, and southeastern Boulder County (Lafayette, Lousville, etc.) in the other. This gets the Denver suburbs into a single district. If you need some more population in the eastern district, shift Longmont. It is commutable, and Loveland is closely tied to Fort Collins. It would also avoid a split of Larimer.

[jimrtex]

Also, some replies.

The division between CO-3 and CO-4. Division of the San Luis Valley, particularly Conejos, in unforgivable. While there is a separation of interest between the Western Slope and the ski areas, you are still better making a north-south split.

Start by shifting Gilpin, Clear Creek, Summit, and Eagle from CO-4 to CO-3 picking up Breckinridge and Vail, in exchange for the remainder of the San Luis Valley, and start working across Archuleta, La Plata, and Montezuma. The goal is to get CO-4 to the Four Corners. If you need some more population in CO-4, shift Pitkin, and then Lake, if this helps you get a bit more north in CO-4. Delta and Montrose could go in either district, though my preference would be to keep them with Mesa (Grand Junction).

I would look at putting the Lower Arkansas Valley (Otero, Crowley, Bent, Prowers) into CO-4. They fit better with Pueblo than Colorado Springs. In  exchange look at moving Teller, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin into either a Denver district or CO-5.

I doubt that there is a Hispanic VRA district in Denver. First, the majority has to be among voters. While there is a considerable non-Mexican Hispanic community, many will have moved further west, and they may not vote cohesively (i.e. for the Democrat). Replacements have either been gentrifiers, or immigrants, who may be increasingly dispersed where they can find housing in apartments. But the district is OK as a Hispanic influence district. The fact that you admitted to having a target percentage suggests that race was predominating over everything else, especially when you started going out into Aurora.

Using an airport to connect parts of a district is not acceptable. A city with 350,000 people (Aurora) should have its own district, so ignore the county line. Put Sheridan, Englewood, and Cherry Hills into CO-9. CO-8 has to stay in Denver, even it pushes CO-10 further out into Adams.

Up North, I'd start with Boulder-Longmont-Loveland-Fort Collins and the mountain areas in one district; and Weld, Broomfield, and southeastern Boulder County (Lafayette, Lousville, etc.) in the other. This gets the Denver suburbs into a single district. If you need some more population in the eastern district, shift Longmont. It is commutable, and Loveland is closely tied to Fort Collins. It would also avoid a split of Larimer.

I followed up on what you stated about Colorado so lets go through the basic stuff.

First off Denver. Thinking about it, there probably wasn't the population for a HVAP seat in 2010. Yes, I could reach 50% + 1, however, turnout and voter registration probably prevent it from functioning efficiently. If we destroy the district, the region becomes much more appealing.

First off, I really love the new 7th. Centered on Aurora, the seat is drawn as a true coalition seat to replace the destroyed HVAP seat - ~39% WVAP with BVAP and HVAP each playing their part. The seat neatly sides into Denver and neatly grabs the northern minority communities. This also allows the 8th to be entirely within Denver. Doth are Safe D.

The 9th - 11th now also neatly follow the county lines and are seated pretty perfectly within their counties. The 9th is all of non-Boulder Adams, some of Douglas, and a bit of Jefferson for equity. The seat sides closer to 50-50 and is probably Tossup now. The 10th instead of being a VAP seat is now all of Adams and a couple of cities that cross the county border. It slides in Democrat PVI and is probably Likely/Safe D. The 11th barely changes and I still rate as Likely D.

I was uncomfortably with sticking the Denver Exurbs in Boulder into Weld. It seemed like the district was reaching into the region in an attempt to crack. However, once I realized the Senate Districts in the region already follow the corridor through the reion, the district was fine to draw. The first now has a slight Dem PVI, and is probably Tossup with a tiny D lean instead of a R one. The 2nd is still Safe D.

I however do not know why you think your version of the 4th is better. Both versions of the district need to cross the Mountains -  the 4th needs to do it anyway. The thing is, such a district that you describe will have multiple communities on either side of the Rockies. Farmers and Eco-Liberals in the west along with the ski counties, and farmers, rural mountain Conservatives, and working class Boulder in the east. The crossing meanwhile is more egregious, going across the state as if the mountains were not even there.

The changes drawing it has on other districts though also turn me away. The 3rd, which previously had a single, or two communities of interest since it was a purely western district, now takes in the Rockies which I had previously avoided. The 5th grabs Park and Teller making it look incredibly weird spiraling across the state and ending in the weird borders around Jefferson and Colorado Springs.

Meanwhile my current district embraces the fact that it needs to cross the Rockies. It is a purely Rocky based district, with population that depend on that fact. The ski counties are a united community, in addition to the non-suburban south slope conservatives. Boulder needs to be in the district. If it is road connections, every county in the district can be reached by road.

My 4th would be a southern Colorado district. There are not a lot of population centers, so it has to be big. It avoids the inexcusable division of the San Luis Valley, particularly the line between Conejos and Costilla. It crosses the San Juans which are far to the west of the Rockies in the northern and central part of the state. Meanwhile the ski areas in the northern part of the state would be united in a much more compact area. Your map excludes Steamboat and Winter Park, and the worker areas for Aspen.

You can swap Montezuma, La Plata, Archuleta, and Conejos for Pitkin, Eagle, and Summit.

Then swap Jackson and Grand for Clear Creek and Gilpin. It is not easy to get from Boulder to Grand (Trail Ridge Road opened for the summer on Memorial Day). While Jackson is east of the Continental Divide, this is only a technicality. To go down to the Atlantic, you go north in Wyoming.

Since the above is not a swap, you need to replace Clear Creek and Gilpin in CO-4. So move Gunnison to CO-3, and add Rio Grande, Mineral, Hinsdale, San Juan, San Miguel, Dolores, and Ouray to CO-4.

Some of the counties in Colorado are tricky because they include large areas that were never set off as counties because there weren't enough people. Northern Weld is an example of this. But most of the population is Greeley and the farming towns to the south, that are increasingly becoming commuter suburbs. So mentally you can just lop of the northern 2/3 of the county.